Global warming, if it is in fact a problem and being caused by human activity, is a tragedy of the commons that can only be dealt with by government. The problem is that a collection of governments is no different than a collection of people: there is nothing to enforce compliance among them to a plan them without a higher authority.

The minarchic variant of libertarianism accepts the legitimacy of government action to prevent destruction of the commons, so in this sense is no different than how other political ideologies would deal with global warming.

Tragedy of the commons? Get rid of the commons. Make everything privately owned. Problem solved.

That would be possible if you could bottle it to the exclusion of others. An air compressor does this. The air in your house might also qualify. To just verbally claim something as yours, doesn't suffice. There would have to be a way to distinguish your physical property as being identified as specifically yours. That's pretty hard to do with air. The same could be said for the moon, the stars, and a number of other things that are hard to reach, contain, label or identify in some manner.

Even highly trafficked roads/byways/paths are hard to identify as owned even when the road is easily identifiable and possessible as real estate. Temporary occupancy and abandonment in this way is similar to the way we breathe air. You inhale it, and while it's in your lungs, it's exclusively your property; after you exhale it, the air is abandoned, and thus available for others to use again.

However, were you to spuriously claim ownership one day to either the air or the road, I don't think that would be justifiable, since where you were freely able to breathe the day before, or travel on a specific road, now you cannot without trespass or theft. Seems to me to be a bit of a paradox.

That would be possible if you could bottle it to the exclusion of others. An air compressor does this. The air in your house might also qualify. To just verbally claim something as yours, doesn't suffice. There would have to be a way to distinguish your physical property as being identified as specifically yours. That's pretty hard to do with air. The same could be said for the moon, the stars, and a number of other things that are hard to reach, contain, label or identify in some manner.

Even highly trafficked roads/byways/paths are hard to identify as owned even when the road is easily identifiable and possessible as real estate. Temporary occupancy and abandonment in this way is similar to the way we breathe air. You inhale it, and while it's in your lungs, it's exclusively your property; after you exhale it, the air is abandoned, and thus available for others to use again.

However, were you to spuriously claim ownership one day to either the air or the road, I don't think that would be justifiable, since where you were freely able to breathe the day before, or travel on a specific road, now you cannot without trespass or theft. Seems to me to be a bit of a paradox.

Air. Water. Moisture. Invertebrates. Fish. Whales. Migratory animals. Eroded soil. Soil in the rivers. Heck, rivers (but I said that when I said water). Oceans (it's like air). Aquifers (it's water, you know). The negative space in caves (air, you know). Birds (free as a bird?). Heck, let's just say wild animals. Of course, now we need to acknowledge that they are beings, and by extension, we need to acknowledge their homes, which is the air, sea and ground.

Ecosystems.

Ah! Ecosystems are like air! They move around, they change, and what happens over here affects over there - just like air, because it mixes.

We need air. That's just plain fucking obvious. But do we need ecosystems? Ummm, they're really complex. Yeah, so unless one makes the effort to understand them, maybe one should be careful about who has what rights to change them.

Air. Water. Moisture. Invertebrates. Fish. Whales. Migratory animals. Eroded soil. Soil in the rivers. Heck, rivers (but I said that when I said water). Oceans (it's like air). Aquifers (it's water, you know). The negative space in caves (air, you know). Birds (free as a bird?). Heck, let's just say wild animals. Of course, now we need to acknowledge that they are beings, and by extension, we need to acknowledge their homes, which is the air, sea and ground.

Air, unless contained, no. Water, unless contained, no. Invertebrates, fish, whales, migratory animals? They're all possessable unless they aren't yet. I'm not sure if you understood my meaning. To own something you have to be able to identify it and contain it for it to become property. If you can't do those things, then it's likely unoccupied or abandoned for now, but could be obtained in the future. And no I don't qualify a wild animal as having a "home", at least not in the legal sense. That would imply they have property rights. They don't. Humans have property rights.

Quote

Ecosystems.

Ah! Ecosystems are like air! They move around, they change, and what happens over here affects over there - just like air, because it mixes.

We need air. That's just plain fucking obvious. But do we need ecosystems? Ummm, they're really complex. Yeah, so unless one makes the effort to understand them, maybe one should be careful about who has what rights to change them.

Yes one should be careful in one's environment. However, my use of my property is exclusive to me, and you have no greater right to tell me what I can do on my land any more than I can dictate to you what you can do on yours. That's the whole premise of property. It derives from the latin word 'proprius', or one's own. If I can't do what I want on my property because you say I can't, my property ceases to be mine and becomes yours. Of course, I could no doubt do the same to you. Do that back and forth a few times and you've got yourself a war/feud. Not interested.

Air. Water. Moisture. Invertebrates. Fish. Whales. Migratory animals. Eroded soil. Soil in the rivers. Heck, rivers (but I said that when I said water). Oceans (it's like air). Aquifers (it's water, you know). The negative space in caves (air, you know). Birds (free as a bird?). Heck, let's just say wild animals. Of course, now we need to acknowledge that they are beings, and by extension, we need to acknowledge their homes, which is the air, sea and ground.

Air, unless contained, no. Water, unless contained, no. Invertebrates, fish, whales, migratory animals? They're all possessable unless they aren't yet. I'm not sure if you understood my meaning. To own something you have to be able to identify it and contain it for it to become property. If you can't do those things, then it's likely unoccupied or abandoned for now, but could be obtained in the future. And no I don't qualify a wild animal as having a "home", at least not in the legal sense. That would imply they have property rights. They don't. Humans have property rights.

Quote

Ecosystems.

Ah! Ecosystems are like air! They move around, they change, and what happens over here affects over there - just like air, because it mixes.

We need air. That's just plain fucking obvious. But do we need ecosystems? Ummm, they're really complex. Yeah, so unless one makes the effort to understand them, maybe one should be careful about who has what rights to change them.

Yes one should be careful in one's environment. However, my use of my property is exclusive to me, and you have no greater right to tell me what I can do on my land any more than I can dictate to you what you can do on yours. That's the whole premise of property. It derives from the latin word 'proprius', or one's own. If I can't do what I want on my property because you say I can't, my property ceases to be mine and becomes yours. Of course, I could no doubt do the same to you. Do that back and forth a few times and you've got yourself a war/feud. Not interested.

Sounds like you're trying to impose a human construct (the notion of property rights) on things because it's convenient for your beliefs.

You can own a whale? Really? Why is that? Wait, let me see - it's because you believe you have that right. Who enforces that right?

That river in your backyard - by your logic, you can contain it (create a dam), and thus you own the water in the river. Is that acceptable?

To be clear, I understand the necessity of property rights, and believe in them. To a point.

Sounds like you're trying to impose a human construct (the notion of property rights) on things because it's convenient for your beliefs.

Without that "convenience" you have misery, confusion, chaos and ultimately death due to war. It isn't just convenient for me. It's convenient for everybody. I certainly am not the chief architect of that belief and I certainly won't be the last.

Quote

You can own a whale? Really? Why is that? Wait, let me see - it's because you believe you have that right. Who enforces that right?

Sure I can own a whale. What's so hard about that? In the case of enforcement, and if I'm capable, that'd be me. If I need assistance in securing my whale, I might employ somebody else to help me. Wow, is it really that difficult?

Quote

That river in your backyard - by your logic, you can contain it (create a dam), and thus you own the water in the river. Is that acceptable?

Maybe the riverbed or the borders of the river, but maybe not all of the water flowing by/thru per se. It would depend on who's downstream of me. Another edge case I suppose, but not impossible to envision.

Quote

To be clear, I understand the necessity of property rights, and believe in them. To a point.

Lemme guess, to the point it emotionally inconveniences you right? I look at it this way: unless whatever you do specifically brings harm to my property thru some physical force (as forcefully applied to me and the things embordered within my land), it's merely my opinion that your use of your property sucks, and I can choose to not like it.

Notwithstanding that emotional feeling, if my property remains uneffected physically, there shouldn't be anything legal I would be able to do about it. On the other hand if you pollute my land, trespass my land, or effectuate specific physical changes in my property, you just might have something to worry about.

Emotionally? As usual, you're being naive. It's analogous to you being informed that you had better put tires on your car that are rated for its weight, and you accusing the guy making that recommendation that he just likes the way the tires look.

The less you know, the more cool your ideas look. And the arguments against your ideas must just be emotional. You've said some very strange things in this forum.

Emotionally? As usual, you're being naive. It's analogous to you being informed that you had better put tires on your car that are rated for its weight, and you accusing the guy making that recommendation that he just likes the way the tires look.

The less you know, the more cool your ideas look. And the arguments against your ideas must just be emotional. You've said some very strange things in this forum.

Genius. You find the only potentially speculative comment regarding an emotional state, and you attack it. You don't actually consider my logic or reasoning, but attack a comment on feelings and emotions. Perfect. Why are we having this conversation?

A tire's rating and looks are two separate matters altogether, which was my entire point. An emotion is an attitude about a specific thing (an indisputable object due to it's existence), because the objects is a "certain way". I'm merely saying your personal feelings about the disposition of my property should have no legal effect on the use of my property. If you don't like how I use my property, you don't get to take it from me just because you feel that way. I could do the same to you, but for different reasons. Where does one draw the line? I say it is at the edge of my property, period.

A tire's rating and looks are two separate matters altogether, which was my entire point.

Actually, that was my point. The value of the environment, it's ecosystems, etc is separate from an emotional attachment to it. Learn about the value of the environment and its ecosystems, the services they provide, and then reformulate your arguments such that they don't sound like they've been written by one who is ignorant of those values and services.

Also, you might want to study ethics while you're at it.

Containment defines ownership? Well, I suppose I could buy the road that your property has access to, since you're in favor of private roads. Then I could buy the properties on both sides of your land and behind you. Then I could build a wall around your property. And I'm assuming that you haven't yet claimed the air above your property because you haven't built a bubble over your property, so if you haven't claimed that air, I'll just claim it, and then I can engage in construction in that space and build a roof over your property as well.

Guess what? I've just contained you - therefore I get to say I own you. Now what were you saying about owning a whale? Oh, I see - it's beneath you on the scale of sentience. Like I said, study ethics.

Now, as for you owning insects on your property, I won't play the ethics card there. But I will point out your ignorance with regard to the complexities of ecosystems. Recall the post I made about wolves, trophic cascades and riparian zones? Either you do, or you decided it wasn't convenient to your belief system. Better to remain naive than to be inconvenienced by knowledge.

Are you familiar with the spotted owl and the controversy surrounding it? I'm quite certain you don't understand what the purpose of saving the spotted owl is, based on your general remarks. Or do you?

Now, as for you owning insects on your property, I won't play the ethics card there. But I will point out your ignorance with regard to the complexities of ecosystems. Recall the post I made about wolves, trophic cascades and riparian zones? Either you do, or you decided it wasn't convenient to your belief system. Better to remain naive than to be inconvenienced by knowledge.

Are you familiar with the spotted owl and the controversy surrounding it? I'm quite certain you don't understand what the purpose of saving the spotted owl is, based on your general remarks. Or do you?

The ethics card stops at humans. If you include other species, then you can divide and conquer anybody because of the flora and fauna you might find on their property. Sounds like we have a land grab about to commence. Nice... where will it stop I wonder?

By the way, I do like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses too. I'll probably just leave them to their business. Just stay out of my back yard. Thanks.

Now, as for you owning insects on your property, I won't play the ethics card there. But I will point out your ignorance with regard to the complexities of ecosystems. Recall the post I made about wolves, trophic cascades and riparian zones? Either you do, or you decided it wasn't convenient to your belief system. Better to remain naive than to be inconvenienced by knowledge.

Are you familiar with the spotted owl and the controversy surrounding it? I'm quite certain you don't understand what the purpose of saving the spotted owl is, based on your general remarks. Or do you?

The ethics card stops at humans. If you include other species, then you can divide and conquer anybody because of the flora and fauna you might find on their property. Sounds like we have a land grab about to commence. Nice... where will it stop I wonder?

By the way, I do like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses too. I'll probably just leave them to their business. Just stay out of my back yard. Thanks.

You can't say you like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses and then say its OK to make species extinct. If someone is doing something that affects a species survival, society has a duty to stop them.

You can't say you like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses and then say its OK to make species extinct. If someone is doing something that affects a species survival, society has a duty to stop them.

I dare you to find anywhere where I said extinct. Get back to me whenever.

You can't say you like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses and then say its OK to make species extinct. If someone is doing something that affects a species survival, society has a duty to stop them.

I dare you to find anywhere where I said extinct. Get back to me whenever.

Then you agree that society can intervene onto someone's land when the objective is to protect the survival of species. Fine - we are in agreement.

Maybe the riverbed or the borders of the river, but maybe not all of the water flowing by/thru per se. It would depend on who's downstream of me. Another edge case I suppose, but not impossible to envision.

Edge case? This is already a source of conflict in Africa, and will undoubtedly increase in the coming years.

Then you agree that society can intervene onto someone's land when the objective is to protect the survival of species. Fine - we are in agreement.

No and no again.

Then you believe its not OK for society to prevent species being made extinct?

If I'm understanding his position correctly, the society which values these species should offer to buy the land, buy enough specimens to relocate them, pay the landowner to change his destructive ways, or some other voluntary alternative.

This is kinda like the "wanting MORE pollution" thing; stopping at nothing to save all species may have worse consequences than letting some die.

If I'm understanding his position correctly, the society which values these species should offer to buy the land, buy enough specimens to relocate them, pay the landowner to change his destructive ways, or some other voluntary alternative.

This already is happening in big ways. The Nature Conservancy is buying up huge areas of rain forest where it can, but it can't do it fast enough, and before you declare that you understand or don't understand the significance of "fast enough", be prepared to research the magnitude of the problem. The first thing you need to understand is the importance of preserving ecosystems for our own continued existence on this planet. Then you need to understand the extinction rate acceleration that is occurring. Over the past 450 million years or so, the average extinction rate has been one species per million per year. Currently, almost entirely due to man, the extinction rate is 1,000 to 10,000 species per million per year. That's 0.1 to 1 percent per year. Do the math.

Other philanthropists buying up land are Yvon Chouinard and Doug Thompkins, owners of Patagonia, Inc. and The North Face.

Regarding buying specimens to relocate - this contributes to the problem. Not the idea, but the fact that there are people like you who think this will work. Species are part of their ecosystem. It's not so easy to just relocate them. And this brings me to the spotted owl. Perhaps you've heard of the spotted owl and the controversy between the ESA and the logging companies? What's that controversy about, anyway? I'll explain. Protection of the spotted owl is not about saving the spotted owl - it's about that and a whole lot more. You see, by saving the spotted owl, which has been identified as an umbrella species, what's really happening is setting in motion the necessary rules to save the very important and last remaining old growth forests in the country, because the spotted owl cannot survive anywhere else. They can live in secondary growth forests, but cannot resist going extinct unless the old growth forests are saved. And by saving the old growth forests, whole ecosystems which hundreds, perhaps many thousands of species depend on can also survive. So the spotted owl provides the umbrella to the whole region.

Quote

This is kinda like the "wanting MORE pollution" thing; stopping at nothing to save all species may have worse consequences than letting some die.

Short term, there may be some negative consequences. But on balance, generally both in the short term, and the long term, the benefits far outweigh the negative effects. And what is required, before speculating too much on these matters, is to really understand the ramifications of what you're saying.

I challenge you to enumerate all the benefits of preserving biodiversity and ecosystems off the top of your head. But I also encourage you to make an earnest attempt to research the matter enough so that if you can't name those benefits off the top of your head, you will be able to after researching the matter.

Here are some particular things you might want to become familiar with:

The Great Amphibian Dying: amphibian extinctions are considered to be early indicators of bad things to come. Why? They spend their adolescent years in the water, and their adult years in the soil, typically in forests. They breathe through their skin. This means they're susceptible to toxins in the water, toxins in the soil, pollutants in the atmosphere, and deforestation. In other words, they're more vulnerable than most species, and thus a sort of early warning indicator of the Earth's natural systems going bad. Do you care to speculate why there were massive amphibian extinctions on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada but not on the east side? I can spell it out for you if you can't figure it out yourself.

The Sumatran rhino: here's a classic example of exploitation and collateral damage to satisfy free markets. Furthermore, it's an example of increased rarity contributing to an accelerated harvesting of these creatures.

The Blue whale: there used to be hundreds of thousands of blue whales. In 1930-31, 29,400 were hunted in the Antarctic alone. They nearly went extinct (down to a few hundred), but due to regulations enacted, they are recovering, and now number in the thousands, but less than 10,000.

Learn about trophic cascades caused by predators, and how these cascades are responsible for important things you might take for granted, like water quality, via natural regulation of riparian zones. As mentioned earlier, learn about umbrella species, and keystone species, and what their significance is.

Learn about how future technology can both aid in development of new technologies through the study of species that we haven't yet fully studied. It would be a shame to lose all those species, and instead find ourselves on a desolate desert world devoid of a wealth of information embedded in the ecosystems we destroyed.

You might want to learn about ecosystem fragmentation, and edge effects as well.

You might want to educate yourself on deep sea fishing, and what the limiting factors are which determine the annual global fish haul, and how those limiting factors have changed over the past several hundred years.

Perhaps you might want to take the time to learn about wildlife corridors, and what their importance is.

And of course, become familiar with the overkill hypothesis. The areas of of interest would be New Zealand, Australia, the Pacific Islands, North America, South America, and Europe. Ever wonder why all the megafauna extinctions on all those land masses coincided exactly with the appearance of man? Ever wonder why we have so few large animals on all those continents? Ever wonder why we do have large animals (megafauna) in Africa?

You can't say you like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses and then say its OK to make species extinct. If someone is doing something that affects a species survival, society has a duty to stop them.

I dare you to find anywhere where I said extinct. Get back to me whenever.

I'll get back to you now. Get educated, so that you're qualified to discuss these matters.